Nazi Comment
-
youwouldno — 18 years ago(June 15, 2007 03:24 PM)
I think you are correct that the earlier interpretations are off base. I feel pretty confident that he told his aide to note his approval of the painting for the purposes of discussing it in conversation later. The scene might have been suggesting the German Nazi elite were uncultured since the official asked his subordinates for their analysis.
-
mark-1589 — 18 years ago(October 17, 2007 09:03 AM)
To JustPassing, as I noted in my previous post, I think there clearly is a question. I think your view on it is quite lacking in historical perspective in the sense that you assume what did happened necessarily had to happen. The fact that the Nazi's later did conquer essentially all of continental Europe does not mean that all of them makes specific plans in advance that included conquering all of Europe, including the British Isles. The events of the film concern Germany's efforts to convince Britain and France to turn the other way while it rearms, swallows up Austria, dismembers Czechoslovakia etc. There is much historical debate as to whether the Nazis really planned in advance to do everything they eventually did, especially invading and conquering the Benelux countries and France. Many historians consider that the Nazis were hoping to essentially rewrite the map of Central and Eastern Europe without interference by the Western Powers (if you can conquer smaller lands without a fight, all the better). Especially considering how unlikely the eventual outcome must have seemed in 1936 (when apparently Germany was highly weak militarily and could have been occupied by UK and France), I find it highly implausible that 1938 Ribbentrop would actually be making a list of painting he could steal after they invade and conquer Britain.
-
Jason_Radley — 17 years ago(May 29, 2008 10:33 AM)
Having listened to the audio commentary with the director and producer (Ivory & Merchant), the meaning evidently was to do with possible future conquest, but I agree with you about this being anachronistic. Beside the point, but a more plausible interpretation would simply be that the information gathered would have been of personal interest to the art-loving Hitler.
-
Piperson — 12 years ago(January 09, 2014 12:00 AM)
The two underlings who spotted the "superior" painting were probably there as art experts. We could see their interest in the painting as a way to help their boss communicate with his host, if we didn't know about the nazis what we now know.
It is a dangerous quality in people who appreciate great art and music that they can see their love of culture as setting themselves apart from the "great unwashed".
At another point a german refers to a "second-rate" country (I can't remember which) but he implies that the country is less worthy than the germans are because the germans are first rate. This is the kind of thinking that brings about bad results. -
ThingyBlahBlah3 — 17 years ago(May 29, 2008 07:49 AM)
Actually, the first poster had it right; the top Nazis, particularly Hitler and Goering, were obsessed with collecting European art, and dreamed of bringing all of the old masterpieces to Berlin for keepsies.
There's a non-fiction book called 'The Rape of Europa' which details this aspect of the Third Reich, and there was a documentary made from it a few years ago:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0997088
I haven't seen the movie, but the book was excellent (if a little dry).
'It's a mess, ain't it, sheriff?'
'If it ain't, it'll do till the mess gets here.' -
cyninbend-149-610489 — 10 years ago(January 23, 2016 02:14 AM)
What you write is true, in fact the final solution sometimes took 2d place to Goering's need to use the trains to bring back purloined art from conquered land.
However, as I see it the dispute is whether they would have been picking out art in Britain before they ever invaded Poland. It's the timing. Were they already plannin g to defeat Britain and take art from there before they even were at war? -
CindyH — 10 years ago(December 14, 2015 06:08 PM)
I cannot say what others have explained, but I highly suggest you do some reading on Nazi's. It's important for your life, I promise.
In any case, here's my history lesson. High ranking Nazis, such as them, were terrible people. They expected to win - and therefore subjugate - the people of the British Isles during WWII. However the absolute incredible resilience of the British helped them to not fall into Nazi hands. Some of the channel islands fell, but that's as far as it went.
Nazis were known for looting. Not for looting in the sense of men keeping things for themselves, but instead for the monstrous Fuhrer. Hitler ordered all valuable art or anything of historical value to be stolen from the people he oppressed; that being, those that fell under his rule that were not German by birth, those with diseases or were sickly, anyone Jewish that wasn't famous or those who disagreed with his doctrine. Those Nazis believed that when England fell (which it thankfully never did), they would take that artwork from Lord Darlington, which of course meant they were plotting against him.
It demonstrates how naive Lord Darlington really was. He committed treason by colluding with Nazis and so that was the shame that Stevens had to deal with at the end. Why he lied about working for Lord Darlington in the shop.
Random Thoughts:
http://goo.gl/eXk3O